Navigate:

Republicans feud over Obamacare

In Tennessee, GOP Gov. Bill Haslam is weighing the idea of creating an exchange while Republicans are pressuring him not to do so. His spokesman, David Smith, said Haslam, “is reviewing the information as it comes and continues to seek answers to a number of unanswered questions.”

Republican Mike Bell, who represents a state Senate district in southeast Tennessee, said he is flummoxed by why Haslam is even considering participating. The required legislation, he said, would be dead on arrival in a state Senate in which Republicans will hold 26 of 33 seats come January.

Text Size

-

+

reset

Bell said he is holding onto the admittedly slim chance that if Tennessee joins states tossing responsibility for the exchanges to Washington, the law could still be stopped.

“I still hold out hope, even though I know it’s a faint hope, that some way the implementation of this law can be stopped,” he said. “One of those hopes is that if enough states throw it back to the federal government, as I understand it money still has to be appropriated at the federal level to be able to do that. I’m hoping that the Republican House in Washington could be able to stop that.”

Elsewhere, Republicans have devoted considerable resources toward building state exchanges, only to scuttle them after Obama won reelection.

In 2011, Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley created an office to build a state exchange and appointed an executive director to lead it. But earlier this month, Bentley folded the project, declaring the health care law would add an unsustainable tax burden for Alabamians.

And Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer announced Wednesday that her state won’t set up its own exchange, even though it had been working on one. “[T]hough I am a steady advocate of local control, I have come to the conclusion that the state of Arizona would wield little actual authority over its ‘state’ exchange,” Brewer said in a statement.

In Mississippi, though, there is little the governor can do to stop the state’s insurance commissioner from moving ahead, according to Jameson Taylor of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, a conservative think tank that opposes a state exchange.

In his Monday letter to Sebelius, Bryant wrote that he “is exploring my options,” though his office did not say what those options are.

Bryant, Taylor said, could withhold the state’s Medicaid funds from the exchange or push legislators to change the law that grants Chaney broad power.

“People expect the governor to be in charge of this,” Taylor said. “Maybe the problem in Mississippi is that our insurance commissioner is elected and not appointed by the governor. He doesn’t have many options.”

Meanwhile, Chaney claims support from the state’s moderate Republicans, Democrats and Bryant’s predecessor in Jackson — Haley Barbour, who favored creating a state health exchange in 2007, when the Heritage Foundation was pushing the idea. In the spring of 2010 when the ACA passed and Barbour was governor, Mississippi was among the first states to take steps toward creating an exchange compliant with the federal law.

The day Bryant issued his final statement opposing the health care exchange, Chaney said he got a call from Barbour.

Readers' Comments (23)

As of 2009 Mississippi has the fourth highest rate of uninsured people. Among all the states, Texas had the highest percentage of uninsured; at 24.6%. New Mexico had the second highest rate of uninsured people with 21.6%. Nevada was third at 21.3% and Mississippi's rate jumped to 21.1% from 17.3% in 2009.

Mississippi is the unhealthiest state and the number one state in highest levels of poverty:

http://www.qualityhealt...

The states expected to decline an expansion of Medicaid elegibility include the four states with the highest rates of uninsured including Mississippi. Mississippi is also one of the states who receives more in federal tax dollars than its citizens send to the Treasury.When Gov. Haley Barbour was asked why Illinois taxpayers have to keep funding Mississippi with taxpaer funded welfare payments his excuse was 'We are a poor state'. The southern Republican states simly don't care about its citizens who aren't white, Christian and straight, they would rather see them die off than even accept federal funds that will cover an expansion of Medicaid eligibility.

Our corrupt government will give the filth that is Israel any amount they want, a blank check that needs to be stopped. They will fight like heck to stop any help for the American people. Yes Israel is scamming the American people, we know it and we hate Israel.

Our corrupt government will give the filth that is Israel any amount they want, a blank check that needs to be stopped. They will fight like heck to stop any help for the American people. Yes Israel is scamming the American people, we know it and we hate Israel.

Our corrupt government will give the filth that is Israel any amount they want, a blank check that needs to be stopped. They will fight like heck to stop any help for the American people. Yes Israel is scamming the American people, we know it and we hate Israel.

These governors better tow the mark. Obama and the democrats will send their "gestapos" (EPA, OSHA, HHS etc) to these states and force them to bow to the orders from the Party. They need to understand the the US has become a somewhat less tyranical parody of the old USSR and current Red China. They will allow the illusion of a 10th amendment where the Federal government has limited powers and states have the rest but make no mistake, the Constitutional version of the US doesn't exist in todays all powerful centerlized government world . They will be allowed to do only what the Feds allow and if they don't, they will be crushed. Welcome to the new USSR, only a "kinder, genteler" version.

The Republicans spent the election trying to convince themselves and the rest of us that even though RomneyCare is working well in Massachusetts, a "one--fits-all" would be "socialized medicine" complete with death panels and bureaucrats telling your all knowing family doctor what to do.

Now that the Affordable Care Act gives states the chance to tailor their own programs, Republican governors are saying "No" and falling back on the "one--fits-all" federal program.

“There’s still a feeling with some conservative governors around the country that somehow not participating will cause this program to fail.”

Red State GOP Gov answer this............ Do you hate Obama more than you love your state?

ObamaCare is a conservative idea endorsed by prominent GOPers (Heritage Foundation) while as an alternative to HillarCare. Now that your idea has been implemented by Dem president, Obama no less, you vehemently oppose it. The question is why?

Why is it okay when Heritage Foundation proposed it then, and not okay now that Obama implemented it? Is is just pure ideology or could there be something else?

Many “red-state” governors, mainly “red-neck” Republicans who claim to be big states-rights advocates, are refusing to set up their own states’ health exchanges in protesting Obamacare. This is probably for the best. Republicans are lazy and indifferent (and lazy because of their indifference) when it comes to doing something to actually better the lives of all their citizens. Perry, for example, would much rather spend his time on donor jets to away games of the University of Texas Longhorns. Walker of Wisconsin would much rather be spending his time at Koch retreats getting his latest marching orders. Republicans would be inept at creating good healthcare exchanges. They are poor governors in general, partly because of their rotten attitude toward government. It is best the smarter feds move in to set up the exchanges for them. Maybe the Republican governors can stand around and watch and learn. They need big brother government to show little lost brother how to set the exchanges up and to explain what they are for and how to run them.

People will remember (thanks to historians) that the Republicans were opposed to Obamacare, which will become as loved as Social Security and Medicare in future decades. Just as Republicans were against Social Security and Medicare, they will go down in history as being against a third critical and popular pillar of our society. Maybe we'll find a decade from now that Obamacare was the eventual downfall of the entire political party (or maybe Republicans will survive through Republican reconstruction of history and pretend they were always in favor of Obamacare, much as they do now in regards to Social Security and Medicare).

Taxes on the 1% have never been lower in fact they are the lowest in the Industrial World.

Corporate taxes have never been lower in this country’s history; in fact Exon Mobile and GE pay none.

Corporations are now people who can use money, aka free speech even if they are multinational.

Reaganomics has eroded the Middle Class to the point where it now takes two incomes to match the standard of living that one income bought 30 years ago, flooding the Job Market with cheap skilled labor while the slow economy floods the market with cheap unskilled labor.

The Gop meddles with every aspect of governing rendering it so dysfunctional there might as well be no government at all.

Bush’s unpaid for; tax cut for the Rich, wars for the poor and Medicare D for Big Pharma have created an economic crises that Gops use as an excuse to defund far more useful social programs.

Where it has not been destroyed by Global warming induced super storms our infrastructure crumbles for lack of government investment.

Creationism is being taught in our public education system as its being defunded by charter schools while mercury levels in our drinking water rise.

So why is the country in the crapper? Depends who is in office. If it’s a Democrat it must be his fault

“I said, ‘Can you articulate any reason for us not to do this?’” Chaney told POLITICO. “He said, ‘We — some of the Republican governors — should not give in to the Obama administration on this, because they will change the rules and control everything. You cannot trust them.’”

The root of fear is ignorance. We fear what we have not taken the time or do not posses the compassion to understand.

In this case, if these Governors do not set up exchanges, then the Federal Government will do it for them. If the Federal Government is going to do it, then it will likely take a unified approach because customizing a solution for each state would be more expensive from the stand point of the Federal Government administrators.

Thus, the thing these Governors fear most--that things will change--becomes more likely. A unified block of exchanges, for example, would be easier to convert to a single payer model or a results-based model from the current fee-for-service model.

On a much broader note, however, fearing change is an unendingly painful state of mind. Change is going to happen. Things change. That the people of these states have elevated men to leadership positions that essentially live in a state of fear and misery rather than happiness and compassion would seem to indicate that a great many people who vote in these states are also living in a perpetual state of fear and anxiety.

This is a sad thing.

Happy and compassionate people take actiion based on understanding, not fear. Actions undertaken solely out of fear or anger tend to beget more negaitive than positive results. Actions undertaken through a real understanding--no matter how difficult the actions might be--are taken because they are the right thing to do, and they are undertaken without fear or anxiety.

All one needs to do, to understand the republicans anger and dismay, is to witness Mississippi's governor twist slowly in the wind with his hands bound behind his back. Plans were in high gear for an exchange until Obama won re-election. The moderate republicans understand that they have only a few chips at the table and this knowledge is making the radicals apoplectic. The radicals are asking the moderates to commit suicide with them. Finally... The moderates are saying... No.

The rules for the administration of this boondoggle come from Washington anyway so the only question is cost. which is always more in Washington. Washington proposes to hire private contractors to set up exchanges in noncompliant States, elevating cost at the getgo.

Of course there s going to be some wrangling over this. States must decide whether they want to control the exchanges, or pass on it to let the Feds control the exchanges and foot the costs. It is both a huge responsibility and a huge burden, as well as a very powerful organization. Its a tough call.

So, while the Dems have no qualms, they want Obamacare, they aren't involved in the discussions as to which option is best for each individual state. So they simply sit back and wait. They don't have to do anything because they have already gotten what they want. Only the Republicans have to figure out how to make it work.

This will all get sorted out. Its no different from any new federal mandate. A similar exercise was in play when Bush passed No Child Left Behind legislation that required states to establish education norms, goals, and standardized testing in exchange for grants to carry out the mandate. They Dems were struggling and fighting among themselves because teachers unions were opposed to it, but most citizens supported it. Today, most citizens oppose the ACA, but the Dems LOVE it and are anxious to see it put in place.

This is simply regular politics when there is sweeping legislation passed at the federal level.

Republicans are at it again, right out in public, shooting themselves in the foot. We all want health care, and we all want to be able to afford it. We need to continue reforming our national health care systems, and we need to make sure that everyone pays for health care insurance (the "individual mandate") because Americans are not going to decide to turn away poor people who want treatment in the emergency room.